February 27, 2015 - In this report, we provide an overview of the Governor’s higher education budget. We then review the segments' performance in certain key areas and assess the degree to which the segments require enrollment growth funding, base funding increases, and facilities funding. We find the segments have improved performance in some areas but additional improvement is needed. We find little to warrant additional enrollment growth at UC and CSU, and available data indicate CCC likely will not use all the growth funding provided in 2014-15. We recommend against unallocated budget increases, instead recommending that the Legislature link base increases to a cost-of-living adjustment and any additional increases to specified state priorities. We review several facility proposals and make various related recommendations, including recommending the Legislature establish state facility priorities and require the segments to submit a report describing how they plan to eliminate their maintenance backlogs.
March 5, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 30, 2022 - This post describes the differences between the original Middle Class Scholarship program and the revamped program scheduled to go into effect in 2022-23. It then examines the estimated impacts of the revamped program and raises associated issues for legislative consideration.
February 12, 2014 - This report analyzes the Governor’s 2014-15 higher education budget. We continue to have serious concerns with the Governor’s approach to funding the universities, particularly as it significantly diminishes the Legislature’s role in key budget decisions and allows the universities to pursue segmental over state interests. We recommend the Legislature take an alternative approach that: (1) designates funding for specific purposes (including enrollment at the California State University and debt-service payments), (2) shares cost increases among the state and students, and (3) monitors the universities’ performance in specific areas (such as student success). We think the Governor’s approach to funding the community colleges is much better but recommend various ways for the Legislature to refine specific community college proposals. Most notably, rather than augmenting a single student support categorical program by $200 million, we recommend the Legislature consolidate seven student support programs into a block grant, thereby offering colleges considerably more flexibility in deciding the best ways to support their students.
October 7, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee
April 17, 2015 - Presented to: California Student Aid Commission
March 20, 2013 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
September 27, 2016 - Chapter 12 of 2009 (AB4X 12, Evans) created the California National Guard Education Assistance Award program as part of the 2009-10 budget package. The program provides financial aid to members of the California National Guard and the State Military Reserve to pay for postsecondary education. The legislation sunsets the program July 1, 2019 and requires our office to review the program prior to this sunset. Because the Military Department does not track certain data, we were unable to evaluate whether the program is helping the department retain members with critical skills or whether it is increasing the number of members enrolled in postsecondary education or increasing the units they take. Given the available data does not show that the program is effective at retaining members or increasing their skills and education, we recommend allowing it to sunset. Because the program’s ineffectiveness appears to stem in part from a lack of a clear focus, we recommend the Legislature consider as a next step developing a more thorough understanding of the Military Department’s most pressing personnel problem and identifying a new solution tailored to that specific problem. Though the evidence does not support extension of the existing version of the program, we also suggest several modifications for the Legislature to consider if it decides to continue the program.
April 23, 2015 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
October 4, 2022 - This post summarizes the state’s 2022-23 spending package for higher education. It is part of our Spending Plan series. In this post, we provide a short overview of the state’s higher education spending package, then cover spending for the California Community Colleges (CCC), California State University (CSU), University of California (UC), student financial aid, student housing, and California State Library.
February 18, 2022 - This brief analyzes the Governor’s budget proposals related to student financial aid at the California Student Aid Commission, the Scholarshare Investment Board, and the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.
February 12, 2013 - In the 2013-14 Governor's Budget Summary, the Governor expresses major concerns about higher education in California. Most notably, the Governor is concerned about escalating higher education costs, funding models that promote neither efficiency nor effectiveness, and generally poor student outcomes. To address these issues, the Governor lays out a multiyear budget plan. The main component of the plan is large annual unallocated base increases for all three higher education segments. The Governor loosely links these base increases with an expectation the segments improve their performance. Although we believe the Governor’s budget plan has drawn attention to some notable problems, we have serious concerns with several of his specific budget proposals. By providing the segments with large unallocated increases only vaguely connected to undefined performance expectations, the Governor cedes substantial state responsibilities to the segments and takes key higher education decisions out of the Legislature’s control. We recommend the Legislature take a different approach and allocate any new funding first for the state’s highest existing education priorities, including debt service, pension costs, and paying down community college deferrals. If more funding is provided, then we recommend the Legislature link the additional funding with explicit enrollment and performance expectations.